It's the Peripheral Canal all over again

The California voters overwhelmingly rejected the "Peripheral Canal" back in 1980, with the help of the big corporate agricultural giants such as J. G. Boswell Company and Salyer Land Company because they didn't want any responsibility for draining the delta.

Well they're back and now the big corporations have jumped on the bandwagon. The project a a brand new name: The Delta Tunnels. It has the same route. It's for the same reason. But this time the elected officials took a different approach.

The legislators gathered together and passed the "2009 Delta Reform Act" in the dead of night when the public wasn't watching. But they didn't stop there. The plan slits the "Tunnels" (canal) into taking the water they wanted in the first place, and pushing the damage that it will cause on to the taxpayer -- again when they're not looking.

The Bill called for "Co-equal Goals" -- but NOT "Co-equal funding." Water for the parched Central Valley farmers is suppose to be on equal balance with the health and salinity of the Delta.

The legislators also created a special group called The Delta Stewardship Council, made up of seven bureaucrats who have moved of government appointment to another. Not one has any understanding of the Delta, the delta's water quality issues, or the science and engineering factors in California's water management. But the major factor appears to be that they are isolated from the voters.

Now those seven bureaucrats have come up with a plan to achieve their "Co-Equal Goals" by building tunnels for the last major water source to the delta and side-pass the Delta all together, so they won't be responsible for the damage left behind. Then the bureaucrats decided to have the taxpayer pay for the Delta with the most bazar plan imaginable.

The state's water barons, legislators and appointed bureaucrats kept readjusting the Water Bond from $11 Billion down to $7 Billion. The problem is that the Water Bond does nothing for the communities North of the delta.

Finally a study came out proving how California water officials promised more water than it could deliver

The water board, State Water Resources Control Board, (SWRCB) signed contracts with water consumers to deliver five (5) times the amount of water that actually comes out of California's watershed. This has been know for some time but finally Ted Grantham's study came up with actual details to prove the fact. But his study only covers the water allocated after 1914, called "Junior Water Rights."It is a fascinating study and will defiantly stur up some interesting conversation.The Sac Bee ArticleThe Study

Only 30 days left to make Public Comment of BDCP Draft

Finally the taxpayers will have a chance to go on record about the state’s plan to build two-story high twin tunnels, so they can capture fresh water just below the city of Sacramento to be piped it away from the San Francisco Bay-Delta and shipped down to the 40 or 50 Corporate farmers, who happen to receive more than 70% of delta water. The plan is presented by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and the public comment period ends June 13, 2014. Most people in Northern California do not know what to think about these tunnels because they don’t know enough about the project to feel qualified to make a comment. The public already said no to a similar plan, the Peripheral Canal, back in the 70s. Now with the same plan and path as the Peripheral Canal, the tunnels project will separate the water consumer from any environmental responsibility for taking too much water and leave the taxpayer to clean up the mess. What kind of impact would this project have on the communities around the delta? No one really knows because there are no other projects to compare it with. This is the largest tunnel project in the whole world. Unlike the Peripheral Canal, the Delta Tunnel plan was ‘never’ brought before the voters. California legislators submitted the Delta Reformation Act, the beginning of the Delta Tunnels project, after the 2009 election in a lame duck session and within 10 days the Governor signed it. It had no committee hearings, no floor discussions, no public discussions, just a quick floor vote on one to the biggest and most expensive projects in the state. The legislation says it has co-equal goals: reliable water for farmers who get “surplus water” and protection the delta’s community and businesses. On the reliable water side, the tunnels, at a starting cost of $25 Billion, will be for and paid by the contractors. Now they won’t start paying that bill for possibly 40 to 50 years, so the taxpayer will pay the upfront money to get the project built. The second part of the co-equal goal, the Delta’s health, will be paid by the “Water Bond,” which won’t be voted on until long after the tunnels have started. Every citizen from the Imperial Valley to Crescent City will be saddled with that bill. On top of that, the BDCP Draft EIR/EIS document uses the most confusing science, leaving the experts confused. The paper says the state will buy land and use flood plains (fill with water the Yolo bypass which was built to reduce flooding,) That way the Delta can hold water for the fish and wildlife that will be affected by the missing fresh water in the delta. Back in 1930, the state setup a “State Water Plan” after a disastrous drought and restricted river flow that allowed ocean water to move deep into the Suisun Bay. The delta communities and businesses, back then, saw their water pipes destroyed by the salt intrusion. Boring worms that live in ocean water moved deep into the delta, destroying equipment piers and pilings along the river. Plants and animals were dying. To prevent this from happening again, the State Water Plan called for the construction of the Shasta Dam, to keep fresh water flowing past Suisun Bay in lean times. The state at that time could not afford to have hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses impacted by the destruction of the delta, nor can it afford to have that happen today. With this year’s drought, the ocean water has already pushed past the safe zone established in 1930. Our Delta communities and Delta farmers, who produce fruit, wine, and vegetables, are already seeing salt water in their water supplies. The BDCP Draft EIR/EIS document admits that the tunnels sucking up fresh water before it reaches the delta will only aggravate this ocean water problem, but they believe the problem will be resolved as soon as California voters approve the “Water Bond.” With that money, the state can fix the environmental mess left behind by the tunnels. State officials are banking on the fact that the general public is too confused or not interested to voice any comment on this boondoggle until it’s too late. The public cannot sit quietly and watch this happen without at least voicing our concerns.To make a comment:http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/PublicReview/HowtoComment.aspx

Slap on the hand for spilling toxins

The fracking company, Vintage Production California, was fined $60,000 for discharging saline water and hydraulic fracturing liquid into an unlined pit for 12 days last year by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.The Board didn't know about this (or refused to acknowledge it) and didn't listen to any testimony about it until someone brought this video and actually showed it in a public meeting.http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mxb671gbmkY

The Delta Plan is not going to help NorCal

California has had a long history of water wars, with many battles, and once again the state is gearing up for another fight. The latest “new” delta plan was released on May 16th, and so far, five lawsuits were filed and probably more to come. The Delta Stewardship Council says their plan meets the “Coequal” needs of those depending on delta water and provides “reliability” for water contractors. The main part of the Council’s plan consists of tapping into the Sacramento River and shipping its fresh water down to the industrialized farms on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley. These contractors were originally the lowest priority to receive delta water, but somehow, that has changed. The Council was given the task to make sure that these water deliveries do not destroy the delta. That is nearly impossible because there’s not enough fresh water. The state and federal officials promised the contractors more water than what Northern California rivers can provide. We don’t have enough water now. That’s why the Council is calling it a crisis. In addition, it’s difficult to pin down the final cost of the plan with so many state officials quoting different numbers. They’ve quoted the price ranging from $24 to $54.1 Billion. The “water reliability” side of the plan is the construction of two tubes, 40 feet wide, 150 feet underground carrying fresh water for 35 miles through the middle of the Delta to the existing Tracy pumps. That’s deeper, longer and wider than the $45 Billion New York Subway project. The “Environmental” side of the plan wants to expand the delta to provide more habitat. This part will be paid by the 2014 Water Bond and will provide $11 Billion to restore the delta and the state’s various infrastructure improvements. Repairs to California’s infrastructure is what we really need. The first lawsuit was filed on May 24th by Westland’s Water District – the main recipient of 9,000 cubic-feet-per-second of fresh water that these tubes will provide. Westlands is a privately owned business. Their customers are not small farmers. They haven’t had any farms of 160 acres or less since 1978. According to the Interior Department Task force, not one single farm in Westlands district is smaller than 3,000 acres, and their farms sit in an alkali dessert. These Westlands farmers need large volumes of water to flush out the toxins in the soil just to grow crops such as cotton and grains. Close to 50% of their profits come from taxpayers in the last 10 years because there is little or no market for these products. They do not grow table fruits or vegetables that have a high rate of return because the soil is so toxic. Westlands believes the 2009 Delta Restoration Act released them from any responsibility to the Delta’s health. This Act was slammed through by both state houses in a short 13 days (Introduced Oct. 28, passed the Assembly Nov. 3, passed the Senate Nov. 4 and signed by the Governor Nov. 10) with little or no discussion. Legislators left the Council to figure it out what to do. The Delta Stewardship Council says its main focus is on “Coequal” goals and “Water reliability.” Before the Act, the state had a responsibility to the delta’s health. That was its highest priority. Only after that was assured would the state address the water contractor’s needs. Now according to the Westlands lawsuit and hearing some statements made by various state water officials, I wonder if the delta’s health has a higher priority anymore. The another lawsuit was filed on June 17th by fishing, environmental and farming groups who depend on the Delta’s health for their livelihood. The delta farmers joined with the environmentalist because they’re worried about fresh water being available for their crops. Too much water pulled out of the delta by these tubes would bring brackish water up to their pumps. The delta agribusiness and environmentalist’s lawsuit objects to the Council’s indifference toward accepted science. They are very concerned because the Council didn’t even look at the environmental reports that are required by the 2009 legislation. They believe the Council did this so they can justify the expense of this project. California had a quiet period for a few years, but it appears with the battle swords drawn and documents filed, we’re in for a another long fight.

Three (3) Fracking bills clear the Committee

The Assembly Natural Resources Committee were passed and headed toward the Appropriations Committee before they go tot he floor.

AB 649 -- Adrin Nazarian's bill -- would prohibit "Hydraulic Fracturing" any where near an aquifer or use clean fresh water until a report can be prepared and studied.

The same three Assembly members voted against all three bills -- Grove, Bigelow and Patterson. All three are from the Central Valley area.Bigelow's spokesperson said that he voted against these bills because they are already regulated and studied.

Delta Council and ACWA oppose Wolk's Bill

State Senator Lois Wolk who represents the Northern Counties along the California's Delta introduced SB 735, that fights for Delta Counties and business interest to have a voice in the current Delta Plan.

Delta Stewardship Council Chair, Phil Isenberg, Vice Chair Randy Florini, and Council Member Patrick Johnson wrote a letter objecting to her bill saying that the value of coordination with the plan's other co-equal goal must be considered.

Isenberg a former Mayor of Sacramento worked for years on the Delta issues. Florini is from Turlock, CA a farming community heavily dependent water from the delta. Johnson is from the Stockton community.

She also calls for maintaining the current regulations on Endangered Species and the Fish and Game. The Delta Stewardship's Board has not agreed to all the current regulations and she has concerns about this potential problem in the future.

Some of the signatures in the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) include Burbank water and power, Glendale Water and Power, Kern County Water Agency, Southern California Water Committee, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Mojave Water Agency and, yes of course, Westlands Water District.

I posted the link to Wolk's bill on the "Water at the State Level" page for your review.

It's about time for some GOOD News

As of today (April 19, 2013) Halliburton's stock has DROPPED 1.33%. The problem, according to them, is the weak North American land-based drilling and higher raw material costs.

Halliburton's revenue went up by 3%. That's an income of around $7.3 billion. But their operations fell by 35% to $592 million.

Here's something I found most interesting. According to the Forbes article: Halliburton "expected to record a $30 million charge related to foreign exchange losses in Venezuela.

The article said that the company's drilling activity in North America has been sluggish because gas prices are low. (You think they might manipulate this market to change that?) The experts complained about "Over Competition."

Fuzzy Math when it comes to the Delta's water

Here is some funny math. Department of Water Resources Director Mark Cowin said that Delta water deliveries "could" (not would) be reduced by 10% or increased by 5%

But this is the fuzzy part -- He's starting with 5.3 million acre feet a year figure.That's the number in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan's proposals.

But wait a minute. The state's Natural Resources Agency has typically exported 4.8 million acre feet. That's moving the starting point UP 9.4%.

The 2009 "Delta Reform Act" clearly stated "The policy of the State of California is to reduce reliance on the Delta.Fuzzy math!

Fight over Fracking in CA is taking another step

Environmental groups have filed suit against the sale of 18,000 acre oil lease sales. The groups won their lawsuit just a couple of weeks ago on the ground that the Bureau of Land Management failed to perform the proper review of it's environmental impact on the area.

The Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club are not going to sit and wait for the Bureau to start all over again. The group wants BLM to stop and look at the serious impact on the area, not to mention the limited water supply.

States demanding testing for toxic chemicalsHaliburton says they are trade secrets

West Virginia is fighting to stop legislation that would protect Haliburton from revealing what toxic chemicals they are pumping into the ground. Normally a company would not be allowed to put anything toxic in the ground, but in 2005 President Bush signed the Energy Policy Act where it said that since the United States was suffering in an "Energy Crisis" Hydraulic-Fracturing would be exempt from the Clean-Air-Act and the Clean-Water-Act better known as the Haliburton's Rule.

“It’s pretty ludicrous to say, ‘We’re gonna pump secret
chemicals into the ground, and we’re gonna transport them through your towns,
past your schools. And I’m sorry, you
just can’t know that they are, “ said Chuck Wyrostock, Outreach coordinator of
West Virginia Sierra Club.
How can landowners know what to test for in their well water if they don't know what to look for? How can doctors know how to treat their patients if they don't know what they have been exposed to?

AB 288 (Levine) - would provide general principles to fracking to protect public health and safety. It is before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

AB 669 (Stone) -would require more tracking, approval reporting related to produced water and related information. It is before the Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Any fracking would use water, water that we are fighting over, so I have a problem with anything that doesn't address the available water for all Californian PEOPLE first.

Fracking is a Danger to clean safe water, but where's the protection?

This is a website dedicated to protecting our water and it looks like Fracking creates the greatest danger to the quality of of our water, and State and Federal Regulators are more interested in keeping the Industry happy instead of protecting our water.

A UC Berkeley report, on the Document's page, says that California needs to tighten their regulations. Just look at the story below and we can see the flagrant disregard for regulations.

Now we have the U.S. Coast Guard submitting a proposal to move this toxic water. What are they going to do with this toxic water? Southern California has to fight for the water needed for it's community. Can we really be dumping dangerous chemicals in our valued resource and then haul it off to be disposed when our back are turned.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board took action

Well they asked Vintage Production to report back about the specifics in this video. I guess you could call that action.

Is this going to be one of those cases where they says "It's not my fault. It's his fault"?The Link to the actual Press Release is here.

These "Fracking Problems in California" stories just never seem to end

KBFA/KBFX (Bakersfieldnow.com) Someone showed the Central Valley Water Board a video where Vintage Production California, a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum Corp., dumped "significant quantities" of hydraulic fracking wastewater into an unlined pond.

The procedure for processing the toxic water is to put them into heavy plastic lined evaporation ponds where the toxic fumes expel into the air OR to drill a well into the ground and pump these toxic fluids into the bed-rock below.

Is Fracking Happening or NOT?

No Says U.S. Magistrate Paul Grewal of the U.S. District Court in San Jose ruled on March 31. He said the Bureau of Land Management failed to properly assess the environmental dangers to California's water and seismic activity. Does this stop it? No it voids the selling of leases to property in southern Monterey County. Article Here

At the same time the public hears that news the California Senate Committee approves SB 4 -- This bill still allows Fracking -- They still can pump water + toxic chemicals and they can still break the rock bed underneath but now they have to tell us what they are doing.

Look at the picture below..... You see that well under the #1. That's a disposal well. Where they put the toxic water. The Bill still allows oil companies to do that too.

Some of the other bills working their way through the California Legislator:Related legislation (all 2013)SB 395 (Jackson) -would move all produced
water under the
purview of the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC),
not DOGGR. (before the Senate
Environmental Quality Committee)SB 665 (Wolk) - would raise the
bonding requirements for oil and
gas wells. (before the Senate Natural
Resources and Water
Committee)AB 7 (Wieckowski) - would provide
comprehensive framework for
fracking regulation. Chemical disclosure post-fracking, trade
secret protection and
notice-of-intent for fracking required
(among other provisions). (before the
Assembly Natural Resources
Committee)
AB 288 (Levine) - would provide
general principles to regulate
fracking to protect public health and
safety. (before the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee)AB 649 (Nazarian) - would provide for
a ban on hydraulic
fracturing and sets up a
distinguished panel to investigate
fracking. If the panel decides fracking is safe then
fracking
can be approved later (time frame is
4 - 5 years). The bill
would ban the use of fresh water in
fracking as well as fracking
within an unspecified distance of an
aquifer. (before the
Assembly Natural Resources Committee)AB 669 (Stone) -would require more
tracking, approval and
reporting related to produced water
and related information.
(before the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee)AB 982 (Williams) - would require
extensive groundwater
monitoring in the vicinity of
fracking. (before the Assembly
Natural Resources Committee) AB 1301 (Bloom) - would ban fracking
until the legislature
specifically acts to authorize it.
(before the Assembly Natural
Resources Committee)AB 1323 (Mitchell) - would ban
fracking until a study shows how
it can be done safely. It provides for an advisory council of
specified membership (appointed by
2014), a study due in 2016,
formal public review of the study,
and a 2019 time frame for
further action. (before the Assembly
Natural Resources
Committee)

National Geographic's photos on Fracking

Who is really going to get the Water from the Delta?

(I apologize for for the errors in this first post. Looks like I was hacked in the middle of writing this.)The State is busy with numerous meetings on studies of fish and water quality and construction diagrams. It reminds me of the magician who distracts you with one hand while his other hand is doing something else.

1. The state legislators are making some serious changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with State Senator Steinberg's bill SB 731. It hasn't gone to Committee yet. I'm hoping I can catch some of those hearings.

2. The state had a presentation on some of the issues with FRACKING. The State Water Resources Control Board said that no one had jurisdiction over a business before they violated the Water Quality Act. Really? We just sit and wait until the damage is done before the California residents can stop it? Sort of like Love Canal. Remember that big mess in New York, I think. Then there is the "Haliburton Loop Hole" The Energy Policy Act of 2006 --

Water Contractors who receive Delta water (via the Tunnels) can SELL their water leases for use elsewhere in California -- the Central Valley Project Imporvement Act in 1992. Kern County water uses have already said they are going to provide the oil companies the water they need for Fracking.

Supreme Court agrees to hear dispute over Forest Plan

The environmental group, Pacific Rivers Council, took the U.S. Forest Service to court over a 2004 management plan for 11 national forests in the Sierra Pacific Mountain Range.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the environmental .group saying that the Forest Service had not given proper consideration to the impact on fish, per the National Environmental Policy Act.

The federal government disputes the environmental group's legal standing to challenge the plan because the group has not been injured by the plan.

Oral arguments will be heard in the court's next term which runs from October 2013 to June 2014.

The case is U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-623.

Legislators changing the CEQAprocess

Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D) introduced a rough draft that limits public comment. This not only limits the grumpy-old-man complaining about noise, but it also limits whole communities calling for their voices to be heard when a "Project" will impact their homes and lives.

I just find this very interesting after Senator Michael Rubio abruptly quit right after a chairing the Environmental Quality Committee and going to work for Chevron.

State Senator sitting on Major Environmental Committees abruptly leaves

Senator Michael Rubio, Bakersfield-D, abruptly resigns with little explanation. He was chair of the Environmental Quality Committee that is expected to make changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a major factor in future decisions concerning the delta.

The new regulations would have to balance in water quality and water shipment down south from the Delta.

Rubio also worked on the Natural Resources Committee and they had a hearing on Feb. 12 about Fracking in California.

The shocker was that he said he was going to work for Chevron. No delay? No time to think?

Then to make things worse, the Sacramento Bee reported on Feb. 28, that Rubio was financed by DCM Assets Management to finance his home in Shafer, near Bakersfield AND a house worth over $600,000 in El Dorado Hills.

DCM Assets Management is owned by Majid Mojidi, President of San Joaquin Refining Co. Inc.

Westlands Water District is not getting the water they wanted

EID Fights off the SWRCB and Kern County's water grab

It's really sad when the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) works hand-in-hand with the Industrialized Agri-business mogul, Westlands, in an attempt to force Northern California's residents and communities to give up their long established water rights and area-of-origin water rights.

But the California Appellate Court stood up for the Northern California Water Purveyor and said, "No.".

SWRCB is desperate to maintain some kind of control over the state's water rights allocation and still meet federal standards of fresh water in the Delta.

Big powerful Corporate moguls such as Westlands are demanding the State give them the water promised in good times. Westlands says they are a "Private" Water Agency serving thousands of customers. The problem is that no one can verify that. Several reports say that they only serve a few farms and count their "Employees" and "Family members" as customers. Westlands does serve the biggest Corporations of Industrialized farming known in the United States. These Corporate Farmers with offices in Los Angles screamed loud and long when the state turned off their water during dry years to protect the Delta.

They fought against taking ANY environmental responsibility, such as the 10 Million Fish that died from Ammonia-Nitrogen fertilizer dumped in a canal next to their property. Taking around 15,000 to 9,000 acre-feet of FRESH water off of the TOP of Fresh water coming into the Delta leave us, Northern California, to make up for the environmental impact that would have on the Delta.

What SWRCB tried to do was attach "Term 91" to ALL of EID's water permits when they applied for new water permits, and set a
Precedence for turning all "Senior-Water-Rights-Holders" into "Junior-Water-Rights-Holders" and leaving Northern California Watershed communities at the mercy of the Delta's water demands.

Various times through California's history, the sea water creeps in when the fresh water is low, such as the drought back in the late 70s or the time when a levy breaks such as Jones Island about 15 years ago (See Photo).

The Court ruled that SWRCB had over stepped their authority, but Westlands fought to overturn that ruling, so the water-poor Corporate Farmers in Kern and San Joaquin County would have a better chance in getting the fresh water a rock bottom prices and in turn receive Tax-dollar subsidies. That is another long story, that I will report on later.

Fracking in California

I can't figure out how Catherine Reheis-Boyd, President of Western States Petroleum Association, became th "Chair" of the Marine Live Protection Act Blue Ribbon Task Force -- but she did. And it didn't stop there. She is now pushing for "unregulated" Hydraulic fracturing, something that is running a muck at the federal level.

When the environmental goo is pumped down and fractures the rock bed, contaminated water bubbles up and needs to be processed (cleaned) before it can be released. The problem is comes down to "Who" is going to be responsible for cleaning that mess up? The fracking industry? or the State? And it takes WATER, clean fresh WATER, to clean it.

Aren't we already in a fight over who gets what water? Now we are going to let a run-away industry, uncheck, and unaccountable, step in and contaminate our fresh water with no plan who will have to clean up the mess or who will regulate it from contaminating OUR drinking water?

Back in 2005 Fracking was exempt from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act by the "Bush/Cheney Energy Bill" called the "Haliburton Loophole" California doesn't have that exemption, but that didn't stop the latest attempt to do new fracking projects..

So on Jan. 24, in Alameda County, a lawsuit was filed objecting to the lack of oversight with the new fracking plans.

Group is fighting to reduce the size of the tunnels

Sac Bee Article by GOSIA WOZNIACKAJan 26, 2013

FRESNO, Calif. -- A half-dozen water agencies have cast their lot with environmental groups in calling on California to study a scaled-down alternative to the $14 billion Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta tunnels endorsed by Gov. Jerry Brown to bring water from north to south.Proponents say a single, smaller tunnel coupled with investments such as water recycling and desalination would result in more water for cities and farms. They say it also would be better for the environment and cost less - with construction estimated at $5 billion to $7 billion.Agricultural groups say a scaled-down water conveyance would be devastating to farmers in the Central Valley, who rely on the delta to irrigate thousands of acres of crops. The proposal is a sign of how California's water wars have evolved."The big fight over the delta used to be between environmentalists and thirsty cities who wanted more water," said Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst at Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the alternative. "But now, there's a growing list of cities whose plan it is to become less reliant on the delta and to invest in local solutions. There's common ground there."The health of the delta, the hub of California's water delivery system, has long been deteriorating. Massive pumps which draw drinking water for more than 25 million Californians and irrigate vast expanses of crops are blamed for declines in once-abundant fish populations.Declines in tiny delta smelt, salmon and other species have spurred regulations that curtail delta pumping. In dry years, limited water deliveries have led some farmers to let fields lie fallow and communities to impose water-use restrictions.In July, Brown and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced support for massive 35-mile twin tunnels to carry water south. The proposal also includes plans for more than 100,000 acres of floodplain and tidal marsh habitat restoration.The project, called the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, must satisfy two goals: restore the estuary's fragile ecosystem and provide a more stable water supply to residents and farmers.Officials say the tunnels would divert water beneath the delta, lessening the impact of pumps on fish. The amount of water to be diverted would be determined once the project is built, based on the health of the species.The entire project would cost $23 billion. Water agencies would pay $14 billion for construction and $5.8 billion for operations. Some $3.2 billion for habitat restoration would come from a voter-approved bond on the November 2014 ballot.During his State of the State address Thursday, Brown said construction costs would be similar to the London Olympics. "But this project will serve California for hundreds of years."Environmental groups and seven water agencies want the state to examine their newest proposal as a stand-alone alternative during the environmental review process, which is be completed by the end of the year. State officials will decide whether to include the new alternative for consideration.In addition to a smaller conveyance and investment into local projects, the new proposal includes strengthening delta levees to protect the water supply from earthquakes, investing in more south-of-delta storage, and 40,000 acres of habitat restoration. Total cost is estimated at $14 billion to $16 billion.Following the Legislature's 2009 mandate to reduce reliance on the delta, many urban and agricultural water agencies have been developing innovative local projects and water efficiencies. But those measures are not being considered by the state, said San Diego County Water Authority's assistant general manager Dennis Cushman. San Diego, which supports the new proposal, serves 3.1 million residents in San Diego and 23 other cities and agencies."It's critically important to first understand what the real demand for water from the delta is, before decisions are made about project size, scope and cost," Cushman said.The San Diego County Water Authority once got 95 percent of its water from the Metropolitan Water District, the giant Los-Angeles based wholesaler which gets water from the delta and the Colorado River.But by developing various local projects, San Diego now gets only half its water from MWD.Cushman said investing in two pricy delta tunnels might not make sense for his district."The state's approach right now is to build the biggest project they can build, invest $14 billion and find out 10 years down line what supply water districts get," Cushman said.To environmentalists, making a water project affordable for the water agencies that will finance it is key."If the project proposed by the governor cannot be paid for, that would leave us with the status quo and the species would continue their march to extinction," said Jonas Minton, water policy adviser for the Planning and Conservation League.State officials say they already are examining a smaller tunnel alternative. That alternative does not include local water supply development or other aspects of the new proposal, because the BDCP is focused on delta conservation, said Karla Nemeth of the California Natural Resources Agency."We won't get any credit for preserving the delta smelt because of a local water supply project in San Diego," Nemeth said.Agricultural groups and water districts say the new proposal would leave farmers high and dry."The proposal doesn't provide enough water to meet agricultural needs," said Mike Wade, executive director for the California Farm Water Coalition. "Developing local supply projects is a fine idea, but they don't address water reliability."A scaled-down conveyance, Wade said, could lead water contractors who serve farmers to continue relying on the existing delta water conveyance - meaning fish would continue being dragged into the pumps and killed.A small tunnel would also not allow the shipment and storage of larger amounts of water during wet years, thereby making the water supply less reliable during dry years, he said.While agricultural water districts are developing water efficiencies, they'll still need plenty of water from the delta to irrigate crops, said Brent Walthall, assistant general manager, Kern County Water Agency, which mostly serves farmers and has not taken a position on the tunnel proposals."We're hoping the water project will be successful," Walthall said, "and that it's affordable for us."

ACWA and Mountain Counties Water holding a General-Joint Meeting

December 11, at the El Dorado Irrigation District is holding a joint meeting about some of the most important issues in our state,

Location: El Dorado Irrigation District

The joint Mountain Counties Water Resources Association and Association of California Water Agencies Region 3 general meeting and program will be on December 11.

The guests will hear from featured speaker Barnie Gyant, Deputy Regional Forester for Resources, about the National Forest’s role in California water issues.

The program will also include an attorney panel discussion on water rights, covering everything from “Water Rights 101” to a discussion on the history of water rights; vulnerability of water rights; protecting water rights and renewing/updating water rights.About the speakers:BARNIE GYANT is the Deputy Regional Forester for Resources for the Pacific Southwest Region USDA Forest Service. He oversees the areas of Program Development and Budget, Ecosystems Management, Ecosystems Planning, Information Management, and Tribal Relations. Gyant was previously the Deputy Director of Ecosystem Management in Region 5 from September 2009 to June 2012. He successfully completed a temporary promotion to Director, Ecosystem Management for four months in 2010 and for five months in 2011. Gyant has an extensive background including work assignments as Forest Supervisor, Deputy Forest Supervisor, District Ranger, Deputy District Ranger, and Resources Program Manager. Early in his career, he was a Fisheries Biologist. Gyant has 20 years experience as a line officer and natural resources manager working on eight different national forests and in four different regions. Gyant earned a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Biology from East Carolina University. He has a strong background in natural resources and ecological restoration and strong communication and collaboration skills.

DAVID ALADJEM is with the Law Firm of Downey Brand. He regularly serves as counsel for public agencies in connection with complex multiparty water negotiations throughout California. Currently, he represents two municipal water districts in Southern California that have just acquired water rights that would provide a permanent water supply serving between 100,000 and 125,000 people. This effort has included overseeing the preparation of an environmental impact report under the California Environ-mental Quality Act; a contested water right hearing before the California State Water Resources Control Board; and multiparty negotiations with water districts, environmental groups, and state and federal regulatory agencies. Aladjem also recently served as counsel for three statewide and national associations in connection with the successful negotiation of a statewide policy regarding the use of recycled water. For that agreement, he was awarded the 2009 Excellence in Water Leadership Award from the Association of California Water Agencies. This past year, he was deeply involved in the legislation that culminated in the landmark water conservation legislation that will require 20% water conservation in urban areas of California. Aladjem was named by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments as one of its “Citizens of the Year” in 2005. He attended law school at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, and received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.THOMAS D. CUMPSTON is General Counsel for El Dorado Irrigation District. He joined EID as its first in-house General Counsel on October 1, 2002. Prior to that, he served as Principal Assistant County Counsel for El Dorado County and counsel to the El Dorado County Water Agency. Cumpston joined the County Counsel’s office in 1993 after four years with Berliner Cohen law firm in San Jose, including two years as Deputy City Attorney for the garlic capital of the world, Gilroy. He graduated first in his class from King Hall School of Law in Davis in 1989. Cumpston obtained his undergraduate degree, Phi Beta Kappa, from Washington University in St. Louis. He is a California native and a devotee of music, baseball, and backcountry skiing.

ROBERT E. DONLAN, is a partner with the Law Firm of Ellison, Schneider & Harris L.L.P. He specializes in water and natural resources law, with emphasis on surface water and ground-water rights and related matters involving state and federal Endangered Species Acts and fisheries laws, the California Environmental Quality Act, water quality permitting, and other state and federal statutory and regulatory requirements affecting water users and water managers. Donlan is experienced with water transfer and water supply agreements, recycled water use, and also with public agency governance, administration and project finance. He regularly represents public agencies, utilities, large private institutions and private parties before the California courts, the State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other administrative agencies. Donlan also advocates before administrative and legislative bodies onbehalf of water users concerning policy matters involving water rights and water management.

ROGER B. MOORE is a partner with Rossman and Moore since 2003. He has practiced land use, water, natural resources, constitutional, environmental and administrative law with the firm since 1992. As a litigator, negotiator, and advisor, Moore is a veteran of major disputes involving the regional and statewide consequences of water projects, water transfers and development decisions. He has expertise in the enforcement of environmental, transportation, energy and nuclear waste laws, and in the interface of water supply, water quality, land use and climate change planning. Moore currently serves on the Executive Committee of the California State Bar’s Environmental Law Section. He graduated with highest honors from Swarthmore College and cum laude from Harvard Law School. Before joining the firm, he served as a teaching fellow at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, and as a research associate at the University of California’s Office of General Counsel and at the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. He clerked for the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California.